By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Newsmax has announced it will not sign the Pentagon’s revised media credentialing agreement, becoming the first major outlet to publicly reject the new restrictions. The Pentagon’s updated policy aims to control how information is shared with reporters, but has led to significant pushback from news organizations. The policy change would potentially allow U.S. military personnel to face “adverse consequences” if they make unauthorized disclosures to reporters, thus possibly revoking a reporter’s access. The decision by Newsmax, a right-leaning outlet, may pose a significant challenge to the Trump administration.
Read the original article here
Newsmax Refuses to Sign Trump Admin’s New Pentagon Press Access Policy, and that in itself is a statement. When a media outlet known for its unwavering support of a particular political ideology refuses to comply with a policy emanating from the very administration it typically champions, it’s a pretty big deal. It really makes you stop and think about the implications. It’s like your favorite baseball player suddenly refusing to wear the team’s jersey.
The core issue seems to be the potential legal risks the policy creates for journalists. The details of these risks aren’t explicitly laid out in the original article, but the commentators’ take on this points to a few key concerns. One of them is liability for reporting information that the administration later decides it doesn’t want to be reported. Imagine the scenario: a journalist publishes a story, the administration takes issue with its contents, and suddenly the journalist and the media outlet are facing a lawsuit. This fear of legal ramifications is significant, and it’s clear that Newsmax sees this as a significant enough threat to warrant walking away from the policy.
The comments touch on the nature of this administration’s legal team, noting that they are not known for seeking or valuing expert opinions. This is a critical point because it implies that the policy might not be well-crafted or legally sound, which in turn increases the risk of facing an aggressive legal challenge, regardless of the merit of the claims. It’s a bit like building a house on a foundation of sand; you might get away with it for a while, but eventually, the structure is likely to collapse. The Trump team’s reputation for pushing legal boundaries probably adds to the precariousness of the situation.
It is also noted that Newsmax’s decision might be more about protecting itself from legal repercussions, particularly if a lawsuit were to arise over the coverage. Think about it: if you’re constantly repeating a certain narrative, and that narrative faces scrutiny, it’s very easy to see how a lawsuit could develop. This is especially true given the history of media outlets being sued for the information they put out, and the settlements associated with those lawsuits. So Newsmax isn’t necessarily worried about journalistic integrity here. They just might be trying to avoid a big legal bill.
The discussion touches on the broader context of the current political climate, and the perceived overreach of the administration. There are also speculations on whether the policy could be used against them, as it is common for leaders to throw their allies “under the bus”. Newsmax, in this scenario, is simply being smart. Why open themselves up to future problems? It is better to avoid the situation entirely by not signing.
Another interesting angle is the fear that the policy would have broad applications and that a future Democratic administration could utilize it against them. It highlights how the policy’s implications might extend far beyond the current administration. This shows the long-term concerns that drive a lot of the decisions, especially those relating to journalistic practice. This might be a risk-mitigation strategy; a way of positioning themselves in a manner that allows them to maintain some level of freedom in their reporting, regardless of who is in power.
The comments also speculate that Newsmax is simply trying to give off the impression of having journalistic integrity. Newsmax gets to appear as though they are standing up for press freedom, while still maintaining a close relationship with the White House. It’s a clever political move that allows them to have their cake and eat it too. It also makes sense that they’d be nervous. A lot of the fascists are realizing that the situation is a little more complicated than they thought.
Ultimately, Newsmax’s decision, however you interpret it, speaks volumes about the current political environment and the perceived threats to journalistic freedom. It might not be a heroic act of defiance, but it’s a prudent one. If Newsmax isn’t signing, it must be for a good reason.